Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, May 3, 2005.
eh. anti-Bush, anti-Clinton. personally, i think that our (americans) downfall will be the hate that runs free throughout our society. everywhere you look, people are either inciting or spewing hate towards someone else. my two favorites - bill and george. i think bill did some things as POTUS that deserve praise, but i would not consider myself a fan. i think george has done some things as POTUS that don't deserve praise, but i would call myself a fan. in the end though, i think both have made valuable contributions to the USA. neither is deserving of the hate that is thrown at them...very sad.
addressing hillary, i consider myself less a fan than i do of bill, even though i did feel bad for her during the lewinsky affair (for both the exposition of what was her private life and how her husband had demeaned their relationship). i don't believe she is an effective leader and would not be good for the executive office. as for her job as a senator - i leavve that decision to the people of NY, whose singular interests she is responsible for.
I've heard there's another anti-Hillary book either out already or coming out soon, purporting to clue us in on previously unknown Hillary Clinton "scandals".
In other words, another work of fiction.
If they were better at their jobs, they wouldn't need to try to bring down the other side. Same goes for you Dems, how many of us voted for your guy just because he wasn't Bush? I can't stand either of them, and don't know many people who do. Why do you think every debate turns into how bad the other side is.
If she really does run for Pres, we'll have another Neocon in the WH. Even someone like Frist. :ugh: Maybe it's a ploy to divert everyone's attention from the real candidate. There are some moderates that I've got my eyes on. Doubt they'll get it though, the lunatics run the asylum on both sides now.
I think the hidden in plain sight reality is, the Republicans would like nothing better than to run against Hillary Clinton in 2008. Then they could make the election entirely about the past and not at all about the future of the nation -- which is the perfect ideological strategy for the reactionaries who are running the GOP these days.
Hillary is a great target to use in raising funds for the GOP's 2006 efforts. Just as the Democrats, rightly I think, use DeLay as a poster boy of what conservatives have become, the GOP can use the same type of smear campaign they did against Kerry (Swift Boat Veterans, etc.) against Hillary and use her as a rallying point for Republican efforts. If they can find a credible candidate and make her spend money defending her Senate seat so much the better for them. Otherwise, she is one the biggest fundraising draws for other Democratic Senate and House candidates. In short, it's not that the Republicans wouldn't love to stop Hillary from making a run in 2008, but rather that her importance in the 2006 election shouldn't get overlooked.
Although she is not my ideal candidate, I disagree with the notion that she can't win the general election. No matter what the prevailing issues of the day happen to be, you know the burning questions that the MSM will be tripping over themselves to answer through polls and focus groups and talking heads will be...
Is America ready for a (gasp) female President?
What would we call Bill? First Gentleman?
Blah - blah - blah.
This works in her favor because it will be all-Hillary, all the time.
That said, as much as I would like to see a female POTUS, I think Biden is a better pick.
And if the GOP knows what's good for them, they'll pick McCain. I think he could beat any potential Dem candidate with his hands tied behind his back.
Lucky for us liberals, though, the Snake-Handler coalition won't let that happen.
I've heard the GOP is having a hard time actually finding anyone credible to run against her (for the Senate, in '06.). They all like to rag on her, but no one actually has the cajones to take her on.
Apparently New Yorkers generally seem to be pretty happy with their junior Senator. She's got more clout than any other freshman Senator does. Even if you support the opposition, part of you has to be happy about having an influential representative in DC.
So Arthur Finklestein is the GOP?
Aren't all elections about things in the past? Every negative ad on both sides is about what the opposition has done in the past.
No, not entirely. If Hillary Clinton runs in 2008, the sum total of the opposition campaign will be a cacophony of Bill, BJs, the Rose Law Firm, making cookies, blue dresses, the meaning of "is", impeachment and perjury. The election will not be about health care, social security, jobs, the environment, our role in the world -- or any other issues of real importance to the nation's future. It will be a repeat of 2004, which more than any single other thing, was about Jane Fonda. I know it and I suspect you know it too.
That's why the GOP is drooling over the chance to run against Clinton in 2008. Making the next election another exercise in bread and circuses is their best chance of holding onto the White House.
I agree with you 100 percent. Elections are dirty.
And just who said that? Anyone here?
Which wasn't exactly my point, but okay...
I am a little dense. So please excuse me. I read your comments to say that republicans just can't wait to run a dirty campaign, forcing the focus onto matters that have nothing to do with future platforms, ideas, etc.
The fact that the "Don of Dirty Politics" has launched an anti-Clinton site shouldn't suprise anyone.
I'm not surprised at all. My point is, this anti-Clinton web site is not what is seems. Despite the advertised purpose, it is not about keeping Hillary Clinton out of the 2008 race. They want her very much in the race, because it makes keeping the future off the agenda so incredibly easy. Conservatives prefer to talk about the future as little as possible. This is one of the major historical, philosophical differences between conservatives and liberals.
It's a slant on the title, and the entire article tries to link this guy as someone who speaks for the entire party. It's implied in every sentence of the article.
Let him have fun, I don't care, but the pure hatred for Republicans around here is just a bit off the chart sometimes.
Oh I see, it's theliberalmedia out to get the GOP huh?
And members of the GOP have never noted connections between righty-bashers (cough *Whoopi* cough)and the Democratic party? Come on iGary, you're being too thin-skinned about this. I thought you said you had been involved in political chats before...
Edit: And remember, you're coming from the side of the party that wouldn't condemn the Swift Boat liars when you claim that people are being hard on the GOP...
Where would the GOP be without feelings of persecution, which they can claim even when they're in total control of the government?
can anybody explain to non US citizens why hillary clinton is so hated in the US ?
from my perspective and from what i've heard about her political career she doesn't look like the devil himself or something
perhaps her rather somehow european-social-democratic ieas aren't that popular (from what i've heard)
I never said that.
I'm not thin skinned, but when I see GOP this and GOP that it's like some people on the political discussion board have nothing better to do than bash Republicans - so I stay out of it mostly. Been there, done that, argued every subject with every political affiliation and got a t-shirt.
You're exactly right; I USED to run a political discussion board. Then I decided talking about Macs is a lot more fun and my blood pressure is about 20 points lower.
I don't even watch the news or visit any news sites on the Internet. Believe me, it's a good thing.
I'd just like to see some of you jump all over the other side when they do something wrong once in a while, that's all. For now I'll just stay out of it, I guess.
i believe a lot of republicans are misogynists. i also think the GOP is deathly afraid of someone coming in and effecting national healthcare (which she used to be a champion of and probably still is).
a few more reasons:
1. she's smart
2. she still uses her maiden name
3. she's accomplished
4. she speaks her mind
5. she's married to bill clinton
6. as first lady, she was "too involved" in governance
btw, i like those traits in women (though the last two may be a bit too specific in that regard).
And, worst of all, she's a goddam LIBERAL - or what passes for one in the US of A...
Only by some. A very specific group of people, in fact.
Some of this has already been covered, but I'd add that the demonization of everything Clinton by Republicans began in 1992 and hasn't abated very much even now, five years after Bill Clinton's retirement from office. You'll notice how often Republicans talk about how problems we have today are a direct result of something Bill Clinton did or did not do and so rarely in the context of the current president or the Republican-controlled congress. They still like to talk about his sexual escapades, in virtually the present tense. It makes a great focus for their collective rage against anything not purely conservative-Republican. That's why they really want Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2008. It would be red meat for the right wing troops -- a reason to get them really angry all over again.
Give us some time and a Democratic president. I'm game.